SecretChiefs3
- SecretChiefs3 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:
25 July 2011
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Fatimiya ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Samuel.Brc ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Sevenislucky ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Royajakoby ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Brooks Sattva ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Al Zulfikari ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
SecretChiefs3 was a sockpuppeteer [1] who tried to promote Wahid Azal [2] (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wahid Azal) and accused those who disagreed with his edits as being enemies of Wahid Azal. [3]
Fatimiya is promoting Fatimiya Sufi Order, an organization founded by Wahid Azal. Fatima has engaged in personal attacks against those who disagreed with his edits [4] [5] [6]
Samuel.Brc has only edited their home page and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatimiya Sufi Order. [7]
Sevenislucky has only edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatimiya Sufi Order. [8] [9] Edward321 ( talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Royajakoby has only edited Fatimiya Sufi Order and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatimiya Sufi Order. [10]
Brooks Sattva has only edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatimiya Sufi Order. [11]
Al Zulfikari has only edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatimiya Sufi Order. [12] Edward321 ( talk) 01:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Fatimya filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeff3000, providing no evidence. When that was closed he refiled as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edward321, still providing no evidence. Edward321 ( talk) 14:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- What evidence did you provide when you accused me of sockpuppetry? None whatsoever. Well suppose I say I have a suspicion that you are Jeff3000 as well? What have you got to say to that?-- Sevenislucky ( talk) 17:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Absurd accusation made in bad faith most likely by Jeff3000. I do not run either of those accounts above. Look into the IP abuse issue then look at the accuser who has nominated the Fatimiya Sufi Order page for deletion. A drowning man trying to cover up his conflict of interest and unilateral action in defiance of Wikipedia rules by clutching at what he thinks is a straw. By making this accusation he hopes to 'get lucky'. Look into his actions in relation to the Fatimiya Sufi Order page.-- Sevenislucky ( talk) 00:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
This is unacceptable. Though I did join wikipedia in order to comment on this article, as is mine or anyone else's right, I have CLEARLY identified myself and my institutional affiliation, and my IP address may be investigated. What is more, I have also joined using my official University of Queensland staff email address. As the above user, who has also been accused of sockpuppetry points out, this is an entirely bad faith action on the part of the person responsible. This does not look good, and there is clearly an agenda at work here. Kindly see to it that this issue is properly resolved Samuel.Brc ( talk) 01:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Please note the following Sourcewatch article: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency
On wikipedia, accusations of sock-puppetry and bad faith are regularly hurled by the wikipedia taskforce of the BIA. There is a documented history of it here and elsewhere. It was done to the Unitarian Bahai page, the Bahais Under the Provisions of the Covenant page, the Orthodox Bahai faith page, and the assorted Bayani pages. This is the case because sock-puppetry is what the BIA does itself. More than likely Edward123 is another account for Jeff3000 himself, and if not the same person, then by virtue of their BIA affiliation these two individuals certainly know each other - in which case the sock-puppetry accusation applies to them equally. If and when all the notes and archives are investigated, and the history of these editors is carefully scrutinized, this case (and others in the past) will reveal no more than attempts by the BIA to silence all groups and individuals deemed ideological enemies of the Haifan Bahai organization to which both Jeff3000 and Edward123 belong. In other words, the Haifan Bahai organization is engaging in religious persecution. This issue and the nomination -- together with the behaviour of said editors -- has now been reported to several religious freedoms bodies as example of what the BIA regularly does to other groups on Wikipedia -- Fatimiya ( talk) 06:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is nonsense. -- Fatimiya ( talk) 05:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Feeling is not a substitute for hard evidence. This is a serious accusation. Where is the evidence for the accusation? -- Fatimiya ( talk) 07:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- SecretChiefs3 is exceedingly stale, but I've a feeling the other three accounts know each other or something. Endorsing to find out if they're the same, or if this is meatpuppetry. —
HelloAnnyong
(say whaaat?!)
02:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please see
this already closed case for more info. In addition to what was said there,
Sevenislucky (
talk ·
contribs) is a
Possible match to Fatimiya.
TN
X
Man
13:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's absurd. I am not 'Fatimiya' nor do I know who the account Fatimiya belongs to. Why do you consider it a possible match? Just because I disagreed with you about deletion? As I mentioned before, my IP address is fixed and I am a different individual to all these other account holders. My ISP is BT on a home ADSL like and they do not allow users to change their IP address nor is it possible for other people to use BT's set of IP addresses as proxies.-- Sevenislucky ( talk) 16:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please see
this already closed case for more info. In addition to what was said there,
Sevenislucky (
talk ·
contribs) is a
There is no match. This is nonsense. If you have a positive match, let's see the evidence -- Fatimiya ( talk) 13:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
-
Administrator note Based on
this thread I'd say this is widespread meapuppetry. It looks like the AFD is being handled, so let's leave it at that. —
HelloAnnyong
(say whaaat?!)
01:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, that is not evidence for either of the allegations. Evidence for sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry would mean that you have clearly established a verifiable link between accounts (i.e. IPs etc). Your evidence is so vague and general that in a legal setting it would be striken out of evidence by any judge. Once again, please establish irrefutable evidence for the allegation beyond reasonable doubt. Have you established a connection between IPs? Are the three individuals accused sharing the same account? Yes or no? Imprimatur is no substitute for hard evidence (which has not been provided) -- Fatimiya ( talk) 11:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, tallying every individual who has given input on this issue as sock-puppets is a form of rigging the discussion. -- Fatimiya ( talk) 11:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Please also note the following, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims "If you are accused of puppetry, stay calm and don't take the accusations too personally. If you have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry, then that will almost always be the finding. If there is a good reason for the evidence provided, point it out in your own section. Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind." Clearly these cases need to be closed -- Fatimiya ( talk) 11:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
SecretChiefs3
- SecretChiefs3 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:
25 July 2011
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Fatimiya ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Samuel.Brc ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Sevenislucky ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Royajakoby ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Brooks Sattva ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Al Zulfikari ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
SecretChiefs3 was a sockpuppeteer [1] who tried to promote Wahid Azal [2] (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wahid Azal) and accused those who disagreed with his edits as being enemies of Wahid Azal. [3]
Fatimiya is promoting Fatimiya Sufi Order, an organization founded by Wahid Azal. Fatima has engaged in personal attacks against those who disagreed with his edits [4] [5] [6]
Samuel.Brc has only edited their home page and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatimiya Sufi Order. [7]
Sevenislucky has only edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatimiya Sufi Order. [8] [9] Edward321 ( talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Royajakoby has only edited Fatimiya Sufi Order and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatimiya Sufi Order. [10]
Brooks Sattva has only edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatimiya Sufi Order. [11]
Al Zulfikari has only edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatimiya Sufi Order. [12] Edward321 ( talk) 01:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Fatimya filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeff3000, providing no evidence. When that was closed he refiled as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edward321, still providing no evidence. Edward321 ( talk) 14:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- What evidence did you provide when you accused me of sockpuppetry? None whatsoever. Well suppose I say I have a suspicion that you are Jeff3000 as well? What have you got to say to that?-- Sevenislucky ( talk) 17:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Absurd accusation made in bad faith most likely by Jeff3000. I do not run either of those accounts above. Look into the IP abuse issue then look at the accuser who has nominated the Fatimiya Sufi Order page for deletion. A drowning man trying to cover up his conflict of interest and unilateral action in defiance of Wikipedia rules by clutching at what he thinks is a straw. By making this accusation he hopes to 'get lucky'. Look into his actions in relation to the Fatimiya Sufi Order page.-- Sevenislucky ( talk) 00:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
This is unacceptable. Though I did join wikipedia in order to comment on this article, as is mine or anyone else's right, I have CLEARLY identified myself and my institutional affiliation, and my IP address may be investigated. What is more, I have also joined using my official University of Queensland staff email address. As the above user, who has also been accused of sockpuppetry points out, this is an entirely bad faith action on the part of the person responsible. This does not look good, and there is clearly an agenda at work here. Kindly see to it that this issue is properly resolved Samuel.Brc ( talk) 01:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Please note the following Sourcewatch article: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency
On wikipedia, accusations of sock-puppetry and bad faith are regularly hurled by the wikipedia taskforce of the BIA. There is a documented history of it here and elsewhere. It was done to the Unitarian Bahai page, the Bahais Under the Provisions of the Covenant page, the Orthodox Bahai faith page, and the assorted Bayani pages. This is the case because sock-puppetry is what the BIA does itself. More than likely Edward123 is another account for Jeff3000 himself, and if not the same person, then by virtue of their BIA affiliation these two individuals certainly know each other - in which case the sock-puppetry accusation applies to them equally. If and when all the notes and archives are investigated, and the history of these editors is carefully scrutinized, this case (and others in the past) will reveal no more than attempts by the BIA to silence all groups and individuals deemed ideological enemies of the Haifan Bahai organization to which both Jeff3000 and Edward123 belong. In other words, the Haifan Bahai organization is engaging in religious persecution. This issue and the nomination -- together with the behaviour of said editors -- has now been reported to several religious freedoms bodies as example of what the BIA regularly does to other groups on Wikipedia -- Fatimiya ( talk) 06:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is nonsense. -- Fatimiya ( talk) 05:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Feeling is not a substitute for hard evidence. This is a serious accusation. Where is the evidence for the accusation? -- Fatimiya ( talk) 07:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- SecretChiefs3 is exceedingly stale, but I've a feeling the other three accounts know each other or something. Endorsing to find out if they're the same, or if this is meatpuppetry. —
HelloAnnyong
(say whaaat?!)
02:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please see
this already closed case for more info. In addition to what was said there,
Sevenislucky (
talk ·
contribs) is a Possible match to Fatimiya.
TN
X
Man
13:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's absurd. I am not 'Fatimiya' nor do I know who the account Fatimiya belongs to. Why do you consider it a possible match? Just because I disagreed with you about deletion? As I mentioned before, my IP address is fixed and I am a different individual to all these other account holders. My ISP is BT on a home ADSL like and they do not allow users to change their IP address nor is it possible for other people to use BT's set of IP addresses as proxies.-- Sevenislucky ( talk) 16:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please see
this already closed case for more info. In addition to what was said there,
Sevenislucky (
talk ·
contribs) is a
There is no match. This is nonsense. If you have a positive match, let's see the evidence -- Fatimiya ( talk) 13:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
-
Administrator note Based on
this thread I'd say this is widespread meapuppetry. It looks like the AFD is being handled, so let's leave it at that. —
HelloAnnyong
(say whaaat?!)
01:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, that is not evidence for either of the allegations. Evidence for sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry would mean that you have clearly established a verifiable link between accounts (i.e. IPs etc). Your evidence is so vague and general that in a legal setting it would be striken out of evidence by any judge. Once again, please establish irrefutable evidence for the allegation beyond reasonable doubt. Have you established a connection between IPs? Are the three individuals accused sharing the same account? Yes or no? Imprimatur is no substitute for hard evidence (which has not been provided) -- Fatimiya ( talk) 11:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, tallying every individual who has given input on this issue as sock-puppets is a form of rigging the discussion. -- Fatimiya ( talk) 11:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Please also note the following, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims "If you are accused of puppetry, stay calm and don't take the accusations too personally. If you have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry, then that will almost always be the finding. If there is a good reason for the evidence provided, point it out in your own section. Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind." Clearly these cases need to be closed -- Fatimiya ( talk) 11:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)